Collaborative Strategic Board Games as a Site for Distributed - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Collaborative Strategic Board Games as a Site for Distributed Computational Thinking Matthew Berland, UTSA Victor R. Lee, USU

Motivation  “Contemporary strategic board games represent an informal, interactional context in which complex CT takes place”  CT can be easily observed if it is distributed among several participants trying to achieve a common goal (collaborative work/play)  Board games might be profitable for anyone who wishes to understand CT and learning Computational Thinking 2

Contribution  “…description and evidence that complex computational thinking can happen spontaneously using non-traditional, non- computational media like strategic board games”  Before reading the paper, and considering the other readings, did you think CT can exist outside of a computer? Examples? Computational Thinking 3

Evidence of CT  Quantitative analysis of the student’s CT makeup  Quantitative analysis of code counts for instances of ‘global’ and ‘local’ CT  Descriptive examples of CT  Revisit these to discuss if they actually constitute evidence of CT… Computational Thinking 4

Methodology  Create a coding framework for distributed CT  Observe/record 3 groups of players (3-4 players) play a strategy board game  Decode recorded discourse using the coding scheme  Extract qualitative examples of CT during gameplay Computational Thinking 5

Pandemic  Goal: eliminate four viruses by discovering their cure  How: coordinate moves and utilize resources  Different roles having different powers  ‘Epidemic’ cards – spread diseases/outbreaks  ‘Player’ cards – get resources and additional powers (rule exemptions) Computational Thinking 6

Pandemic board Computational Thinking 7

Coding for CT  Empirically-based approach where data have motivated the creation of the categories  Interpretive analysis of recording excerpts was used to develop CT codes  Data-driven vs research-driven approach to CT; What are the pros and cons?  What if they have decided upon the CT concepts beforehand? Maybe longer list? Computational Thinking 8

Coding categories Category Description Rationale Conditional Conditional logic is the use of an Wing (2006); National Research logic “if-then-else” construct. Council (2009) Algorithm An algorithm is a data “recipe” or Papert’s (1980) “procedural building set of instructions. thinking” Debugging Debugging is the act of Papert (1980); Wing (2006), NRC determining problems in order to (2009); Abelson, Sussman, and fix rules that are malfunctioning. Sussman (1996) Simulation Simulation is modeling or testing Wilensky and Reisman (2006) of algorithms or logic. Distributed Distributed computation applies National Research Council (2009) computation to rule-based actions. Computational Thinking 9

Distinguishing categories I  Algorithm building vs Simulation “...I could move ... here, that’s “...Essen, I have [the Essen “...Essen, I have [the Essen 1. And then take out 1 there, card], so I could fly, I could card], so I could fly, I could then go to Tokyo, so 3. Wait, take care of that during my take care of that during my 1, 2 ... I could move here; and turn. [I could address] that turn. [I could address] that then just not do anything there; London outbreak after I take London outbreak after I take and then move to Tokyo; and care of that. ‘Cause that would care of that. ‘Cause that would then fly from Tokyo to where take one, then I can fly to take one, then I can fly to A is; and then give him this Essen, then move there. And Essen, then move there. And card so the beginning of his then I can take the rest of that.” then I can take the rest of that.” next turn ... he can play.” Computational Thinking 10

Distinguishing categories II  Algorithm building vs Conditional logic “...if I moved here, then that’s “...I could move ... here, that’s “...if Milan gets one more, one. And if I take out one there, 1. And then take out 1 there, that means Istanbul gets one, then go to Tokyo, so 3. Wait, then go to Tokyo, so 3. Wait, and if Istanbul had 3, that 1, 2… If I could move here, and 1, 2 ... I could move here; and means Istanbul would start then just not do anything there; then just not do anything there; infecting ones next to it, too, and then move to Tokyo; and and then move to Tokyo; and and it would be like a chain then fly from Tokyo to where then fly from Tokyo to where reaction.” A is; and then give him this A is; and then give him this card so the beginning of his card so the beginning of his next turn ... he can play.” next turn ... he can play.” Computational Thinking 11

Results “Distributed computation was consistently the most frequently occurring computational discourse for all groups.” Computational Thinking 12

Distinguishing categories III  Distributed computation vs rest Patrick: “Okay, for my turn first off I’m Patrick: “Okay, for my turn first off I’m <- Simulation/algorithm going to cure Lima... And then I’m going going to cure Lima... And then I’m going to move LJ. ... I’ll move you here because to move LJ. ... I’ll move you here because that way you’re only two away.” that way you’re only two away.” L.J.: “If you move me to one of your cards, L.J.: “You can move me to one of your <- Conditional logic and then I’ll teleport there.” cards, and then I’ll teleport there.” Michael: “But you can only trade the card Michael: “But you can only trade the card <- Debugging of the one you’re standing in.” of the one you’re standing in.” L.J.: “Oh, that’s right.” L.J.: “Oh, that’s right.” Michael: “Just because you have one, you Michael: “Just because you have one, you can’t turn all of them in can’t turn all of them in…” Computational Thinking 13

Local and Global Logic  Local logic relates directly to immediate actions being taken  Global (abstracted) logic involves “higher order” relationships  How can algorithm building be local? Isn’t the abstraction that makes algorithms reusable?  Global logic more similar to multi-agent programming or parallel processing? Computational Thinking 14

Discussion I CT quality and quantity depends on:  Internalizing a set of rules by the players (conditional logic & debugging)  Devise strategies for optimizing behavior (algorithm building & debugging)  Do you see other CT constructs that could potentially manifest through board games? Computational Thinking 15

Discussion II Board games advantages:  Coordination for rule understanding and group strategy formation (distributed comp.)  Debugging is associated with the process of internalizing and learning the rules.  Do you consider distribution of labor or cognitive load a CT component? Computational Thinking 16

Discussion III  Strategic board games should be intentionally designed to develop CT  Increase participation to computational activities through their diverse appeal  Researchers either seek new ways to teach CT or instill CT concepts in other domains. What is the best approach?  What are the trade-offs of teaching CT with board games instead of using a computer? Computational Thinking 17

Evidence of CT (revisited)  Quantitative analysis of the student’s CT makeup  Quantitative analysis of code counts for instances of ‘global’ and ‘local’ CT  Descriptive examples of CT  Were the authors convincing in their consideration of these evidence as CT? Computational Thinking 18